Mr. Price is a doctoral student on
systematic theology at Drew University. This article appeared in the Christian
Century November 28, 1979, p. 1183. Copyright by the Christian Century
Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription
information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for
Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

Only a few years ago, it would have seemed a
contradiction in terms to speak of a “fundamentalist social gospel.” One of the
paramount tenets of the fundamentalist movement was its individualistic piety,
its stubborn withdrawal from the social and political arena. This retreat came
as a reaction to the theological liberalism of the “social gospel” movement.
But it had not always been so. As Timothy Smith, Donald Dayton and others have
pointed out, evangelical Christians phyed notable roles in early periods of
social reform in America. Indeed, the attention Smith and Dayton have received
from evangelical readers suggests that the tide has turned once again. It is
surely one of the most important and welcome religious phenomena of recent
years that conservative Protestants are becoming vigorously involved in a kind
of “social gospel” of their own. Witness the various organizational names:
“Evangelicals for McGovern,” “Evangelicals for Social Action,”á “Evangelical Women’s Caucus.”

A Strong Element of Biblicism

Though the new evangelical social awakening may
seem long overdue, it is also the product of a lengthy history. The present
revival of social concern among evangelical Christians seems to stem
historically from the clarion call of the “neoevangelical” movement, as sounded
forth in the late 1940s by Harold J. Ockenga, Edward J. Carnell and Carl F. H.
Henry. The hallmark of “neoevangelicalism” was a repudiation of fundamentalist
separatism at several levels. Neoevangelicals, though still avowedly
fundamentalist in doctrine, wanted to remain in mainline denominations, and
they wanted to pursue dialogue with neo-orthodox and liberal theologians on an
academic level. Yet it soon became apparent that only a change of tactics was
intended. Ockenga announced the neoevangelical goal to he one of “infiltrating”
and taking over mainline denominations. Henry and Carnell wanted merely to get
a better, more respectable platform for fundamentalist apologetics.

As for the new call to social action, it too
was, in Henry’s phrase, “a plea for evangelical demonstration.” The
not-so-hidden agenda was to make evangelical Christianity the spearhead
for social reform -- at least partly, one suspects, to gain credibility for it
as a theological alternative.

And today in the literature of the “young
evangelicals,” one may still find the inference, if not the outright assertion,
that evangelicals have a superior approach to social action. What can this
mean, since there is no uniformity of political opinion among young
evangelicals? Basically the assumption revolves about the strong element of
biblicism still present in evangelical social theory. Evangelical Christians
themselves see the “centrality of the Bible” as their strong point, whatever
particular positions result from this principle. They feel that they can avoid
the subjective trendiness of ‘60s liberal Protestant activism, as well as the
discouragement that resulted from the intransigence of the problems the
liberals faced. After all, they have the “scriptural mandates” -- what Carl
Henry would have called “biblical verities” -- to stand on, not the mere
sentimentality of conscience.

This all sounds good, but closer examination
will show cause for reservations. Let me describe a certain hermeneutical
na´vetÚ that mars the otherwise quite admirable political consciousness-raising
now taking place among evangelicals. There is evidence of a wide-ranging
rethinking of hermeneutics among evangelicals (see recent writings by Clark
Pinnock, Daniel Fuller and Charles Kraft), but in much of the social-action
literature we may be surprised to find a survival of the unsophisticated
fundamentalist approach to the Bible. This na´vetÚ results in two abuses which
I will call “hermeneutical ventriloquism” and “political snake-handling.”

Hermeneutical Ventriloquism

Most conservative evangelicals have been taught
that personal opinions and cultural views are worthless unless they can make
direct appeal to a biblical warrant of some sort. Many of the current “young
evangelical” writers grew up in the ‘60s, and could not resist the perceived
cogency of certain cultural trends -- for instance, racial and sexual equality,
or nonviolence. Their religious upbringing provided no basis or authorization
for espousing such views, however. (For a couple of autobiographical accounts
along these lines, see the introductions to Donald Dayton’s Discovering an
Evangelical Heritage and Jim Wallis’s Agenda for Biblical People.) Some
renounced their religious backgrounds. Others sought to accommodate their new,
liberalized stance to their evangelical ethos. The main strategy was an appeal
to the Bible that I call “hermeneutical ventriloquism.”

The young evangelical approaches the problem
like this: “Feminism [for example] is true; the Bible teaches the truth;
therefore the Bible must teach feminism.” Now it is far from obvious
that the Bible explicitly teaches feminism, yet the young evangelical
will feel that he or she has no right to be a feminist unless “the Bible tells
me so.” Thus the primary task of the reform-minded evangelical is to make the
Bible teach feminism in the most plausible way.

I think it is rather revealing in this regard to
examine the intrafeminist dialogue in young-evangelical publications. There we
find at least two competing approaches. Sharon Gallagher, Aida Spencer, Letha
Scanzoni and others maintain that rightly understood, the plain sense of
the text has always been feminist in nature. For instance, I Timothy 2:12, read
in the light of Assyrian, rabbinic or Hellenistic texts, seems suddenly to mean
that women should not teach only if they happen to be heretics, orgiasts, etc.
Or the “headship” of Christ over the church, and of husband over wife, in
Ephesians 5:23 really connotes “source,” not “authority,” despite the
context which would seem to suggest that “source” implies “authority”
(e.g., Ephesians 1:22).

Other writers -- e.g., Virginia Mollenkott and
Paul Jewett -- admit that various biblical texts do inculcate male
domination, but that such “problem texts” (problematic only to feminists, note)
should be ignored in favor of the implicit thrust of other, egalitarian texts
such as Galatians 3:28. The agreed upon goal is that the Bible is to support
feminism. The debate is over the best way to arrive at this predetermined goal
exegetically! The Bible must support the desired social position;
otherwise how can the young evangelical believe it, much less persuade fellow
evangelicals?

False Pretenses

So far, I have proposed that many activist
evangelicals have really come to hold their social views on the basis of
cultural osmosis or legitimate political argumentation. But they need to
believe that “biblical mandates” are the reason for their conviction. The real
reason has been hidden, even from themselves. There i8 genuine utility (as well
as danger) in this unnoticed ground-shifting if one is trying to convert other
evangelicals to, e.g., biblical feminism.” If one can plausibly appeal to
biblical texts, the battle is nearly won, but quite possibly on false
pretenses. Since prooftexting (albeit sophisticated) is the avowed criterion,
other, more subtle and more appropriate criteria are ignored, even on
principle. “Worldly” considerations like pragmatic or political realities
(the real though hidden origins of the young evangelical’s own position) must
bow to exegetical arguments. Obviously, young evangelicals will do a
better job of dealing with the inevitable practical factors if they consciously
recognize the presence of such factors.

There is an even more disturbing implication to
this approach. When biblical texts are the only sufficient reason for holding
ethical and political views, a dubious “divine voluntarism” results. For
instance, in a discussion of apartheid, David Field remarks: “From a Christian
point of view, it is important to examine the case for apartheid in some detail
. . . because among its strongest supporters it numbers Christians who claim to
have tested their attitudes and opinions by the standards of Scripture” (Free
to Do Right [InterVarsity, 1976], p. 19).The barely hidden
implication is that if the apartheid advocates could marshal sufficiently
weighty exegetical support, Field would agree with them!

Political Snake-Handlers

But there is a second group of young
evangelicals who take something like Field’s avowed biblicism with a good deal
more seriousness. I have in mind primarily the Sojourners Community and their
orbit, though the same attitude can be found elsewhere. These are the
“political snake-handlers.” Members of our first group, the “hermeneutical
ventriloquists,” think to espouse positions because of the Bible, but do so
actually because of unsuspected political/cultural factors. Now our second
group actually does dispense with all political realities. Here the
operative principle is “the Bible said it -- I believe it -- that settles it!”
We face an absolutist sort of “deontological” ethics. In other words, “the
means justifies the end” (read that again). So long as we obey the “biblical
mandates of radical discipleship,” we can let God worry about where the chips fall.
In their own terms, it is a choice of “faithfulness” over “effectiveness.”

Young evangelicals may take such an approach to
pacifism, unilateral disarmament, “no-nukism,” multinational corporate
exploitation, or world hunger. Solutions to such problems seem simple, because
the issues are seen in black-and-white terms. What is the absolutely righteous
thing to do? Then let’s do it! And if the standard of living drops, people lose
jobs, foreign powers pounce, then what? Trust the Lord! Even if he doesn’t deliver
us from a nuclear attack prompted by our unilateral disarmament, our country is
no doubt sinful enough to deserve what it gets. At any rate, the outcome will
provide the young evangelical “righteous remnant” (the explicit terms,
incidentally, in which they see themselves) with an excellent opportunity to
“go the way of the cross,” paying the cost of radical discipleship. What else
can a “radical Christian” expect in this fallen age?

We have seen this kind of thinking in
evangelicalism before. Premillennialists have often blindly supported Israel
against the Palestinians regardless of (not because of) political
considerations. All they needed to know was that “God promised the land to the
Jews.” There is a rather obvious parallel between such a political stance and
the faith that leads fringe Pentecostals to refuse medical care in favor of
“Doctor Jesus,” who will heal miraculously. And then there are those
Appalachian snake-handlers whose blinding faith in Mark 16:18 assures them that
the serpents will not strike.

Most evangelicals readily repudiate such
extremism. Faith, they realize, must be coupled with realistic common sense if
one is to maintain any sense of proportion. How then can they throw realism to
the winds when it comes to politics? That is precisely what they are doing when
they call for brushing aside the considerations of “this age” in favor of the
alien standards of the Kingdom of God. When Sojourners editor Jim Wallis
writes words like the following, it becomes evident that he has decided for a
stance that disregards political reality as we know it: “Biblical politics are
invariably alien to the politics of the established regime and will also
question the politics of the new regime that any revolution will eventually
establish for itself.” In other words, the gospel as understood by Wallis is
incompatible with any conceivable state of political affairs! This man
is playing in a completely different ball park from most of the rest of us. His
is a radically negating “Christ against culture” position.

The Burden of Ambiguity

Now if it were clear that allegiance to the
Kingdom were to be put in these terms, what could one do but grit one’s teeth
and go the way of the thermonuclear cross? But the mandate is not quite so
clear except to the biblicist. We may yet hope to see a more sophisticated
evangelical hermeneutic that will not lift the (interim-ethical?) injunctions
of the New Testament out of the first century and drop them heavily on the
20th. Perhaps the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr or JosÚ Miguez Bonino could be
helpful guides. And of course there are appropriately reasoned political
defenses for pacifism (e.g., that of Martin Luther King, Jr.) and other
positions espoused by young evangelicals.

What is disturbing is the biblicistic, ‘let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may”
attitude often present in the young evangelicals’ literature. Given the
fundamentalist personal background of many young evangelical writers, this
unconscious hangover of biblicism is not too surprising. What is truly astonishing
is the enthusiasm with which their rhetoric has been embraced by some famous
mainstream church people who, hermeneutically speaking, ought to know better.
Perhaps such liberal Protestants are tired of the ambiguous fruits of their
conventional lobbying and editorial efforts. Young evangelicals seem to offer a
new cause with vigor and conviction.

One is reminded of the denominational reaction
to the current cult phenomenon: “What are we doing wrong? Why can’t we muster
the enthusiasm and commitment that the Moonies can?” The burden of living with
ambiguity and of being “old-hat” may have something to do with Christian
faithfulness in the long run.